Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
- From: "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:09:16 GMT
"Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185184843.341458.213710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is last part of the message.
It is funny to read above replies.
Still avoiding deriving the relativistic lagrnagian. Its derivation is one
of the most beautiful in all of physics - so beautiful Zwienbach in his
First Course in String Theory devotes a whole chapter to it. Landau - in
his usual terse style - one page in Classical Theory of Fields. Jesus I
have even posted it before. You have the sources so it should be a snap -
care to post it?
Bill
Eric Gisse using more liar
techniques, modifying I am really saying, parroting I wrote before for
simulating he knows, and all those well-known tactics. And to Bilge
and Karandash2 replying to questions I asked. Upps wait, no they did
not reply still!
Karandash2 (a supposed physicist) still cannot write the general
lagrangian not the full equation of motion for classical EM. I have
asked him many times. I am doing it once again, but since the answer
is not in the undergrad level textbook on the library, he cannot
reply. End.
Bilge (the other supposed physicist) still has not explained what are
the units of U. He has huge difficulties to apply dimensional calculus
to U and to get its units. Since in their own words U = [e * phi] - [j
* A] is not an energy:
Look, moron... That expression is not a potential energy. An energy
is the time component of a four-vector, not the scalar product of two
four-vectors. jeeezzzz...
Bilge, since you claim U is not an energy, please show us what are the
units of U? Length? Temperature?
####
####
#### Steve Carlip misconceptions and misreading ####
####
In a reply to Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato, Tim Shuba decided to submit
next post:
On Jul 13, 11:11 pm, shuba <tim.sh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
We share same opinion about Juan.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/22bf366b013f1d39?dmode...
---Tim Shuba---
It links to an old reply by Steve Carlip about Newtonian limits I had
not replied in detail.
I had prepared a complete post with several references but I have
though better and finally I will not post here. Since Carlip has
adquired an international fame by his attacks to several scientists
with ideas and research different from he likes, he truly deserves
more attention from my part. I prefer to reply him in a more formal
way in a published letter.
The letter has a threefold aim:
i]
I want to correct certain technical mistakes that Carlip is spreading
both offline (e.g. in recent publications about the speed of gravity
issue) and online in this and other newsgroups.
ii]
Steve Carlip attributes to me many assertions actually were not made,
and I want to correct that also. For instance i said, in a clear and
simple way, that the Newtonian potential IS a solution of the Poisson
equation and Carlip, accusse me from saying the contrary! That
distraction tactic is well-know. Whereas he avoid to reply to
thecnical questions i ask him. I am still waiting from him to explain
us how functions f(r,t) magically convert to f(R(t))
iii]
It has an educative and sociological orientation, since you can
analyse Carlip behavior and diferent techniques used during debate:
directly insulting, attempts to trivialize some technical question
deserving further study, direct manipulation I am really saying, and
some others.
.
- References:
- Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
- From: Juan R.
- Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
- Prev by Date: Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
- Next by Date: Re: Michelson Morley experiment with sound waves
- Previous by thread: Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
- Next by thread: Re: Bunch of corrections (multipart message)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
